And, obviously, (3) how do you recoup a multi-year investment across the period of only some months? Making games is extremely expensive and MMOs are by far the most expensive type to make.
> But when you are done, there might be snippets from 100s of different repositories potentially.
Potentially, but not necessarily. It's possible also that if there is only one close match for the logic required, it may produce verbatim something it's already seen. GPT is known to do this for sufficiently precise inputs.
> I have a lot of open source code that I love to share for things like education or private stuff, but if you want to use it for something real, you need to hire me.
implies that they have code which they are sharing under that proviso. Do you read it differently?
You are right about the technical distinction of open source from source-available. I think that the GGP (and myself) were both using it colloquially as a shorthand for source-available.
It sounds like the person you're responding to already releases their code under a non-commercial license. The problem with Copilot is that it may allow commercial enterprises to avoid such a license by copying the code verbatim from their repositories, possibly without any party involved knowing that it's happened.
If anything, TS is a concretion of JS rather than an abstraction over it.
When you write TS, you are (literally) writing JS, except that you are also writing miniature contracts (types) which are shared between components of the system and between authors of the code. This helps to ensure that the JS everyone is writing is mutually compatible, and that pieces of JS that should fit together actually do.
The idea that something's not part of the web stack if you can't throw it at a browser seems a bit weak; especially as, in this case, you can throw a subset of what you write at a browser and have it perform as intended.
You would expect that the surplus of space in many US metropolitan areas would make it considerably easier to install and operate metro transit lines, but this seems not to be the case. I suspect the systemic bias towards road users is much more of a problem than geographical scale.
I hate to point this out on HN but it does seem relevant. If you dislike Google's use of ads, why not block them?
I think you've acknowledged that Google and Amazon provide the best services of their respective classes. Can we find a way to maintain that high standard without the crud that comes with it?
I think there's a difference (moreover, a percievable difference) between a UI redesign which users hate and a UI redesign which users merely complain about. People love complaining and will happily point out the rough edges of anything put in their eyeline, but that's not the same thing as disliking it in a vacuum.
I guess that's a side effect of the siloing that goes on on Facebook. I certainly heard nothing major about it, and orders of magnitude less than the same/similar people about the Twitter redesigns.
It's interesting to compare the user responses to updates by Facebook and Twitter respectively.
Facebook's UI has changed significantly over the last 15 or so years. Features have appeared and disappeared, boxes have been arranged and rearranged. But there's rarely a big fuss beyond it getting a little slower each time (roughly commensurate with consumer hardware speedup, in fact). People don't really notice and they don't really care. People originally balked at the reactions feature, calling it gauche and unnecessary - but now people use it as part of the language of the platform without a second thought.
Compare with Twitter. Every UI "overhaul" they've ever done has been received in a hugely negative way. The only change which has been remotely successful was the 140/280 switch.
The difference is threefold:
First, Twitter's UI changes have been big. They skip over incremental changes and go straight for gigantic overhauls. This requires people re-learn the language of the site completely every couple of years.
Second, these changes have invariably been coupled with user-hostile design decisions. The obvious one this time round is the automatic switching to "AI sorted timeline" on every visit. No wonder people have an almost pavlovian response to the design changes.
And thirdly, while Facebook's changes are usually to accommodate changing usage patterns, new features, or new hardware, Twitter's updates are very transparently pointless. They offer zero improvement to the user experience for any sector of the market. Every change causes people to question why they use the site in the first place.
Gosh I didn't expect this to be such a long rant. Turns out I have a lot to say about the terrible design decisions made over in Twitter land. The conclusion is this: people don't hate change. They hate change which makes their lives worse than the status quo would have done. It's not complicated.
It's hard to adapt and change flexibly if you're busy dealing with the upshot of yesterday's unforeseen disaster.